From Wikipedia:
Zimmerman asserted self-defense, telling police he had stepped out of his truck to check the name of the street he was on, when Martin attacked him from behind as he walked back to his truck. He said he fired the semiautomatic handgun because he feared for his life.
From the same Wikipedia:
The police told the Orlando Sentinel, that Zimmerman told them that after he followed Martin, he lost track of him and was returning to his car. Zimmerman reported Martin then confronted him and asked "Do you have a problem?". Zimmerman said he replied no, and then reached for his cell phone. Zimmerman then alleged that Martin punched him in the face, knocking him down, and then began to beat his head against the ground. Zimmerman states that he called out for help while being beat, and that he then shot Martin in self defense.
And another snippet:
According to Durell Peaden, one of the sponsors of the Florida law, the law does not say that a person has a right to confront another. "When [Zimmerman] said 'I'm following him', he lost his defense."[97]
If all of it can be believed, the Wiki article stirs up a lot of mud.
There appears to be no indication that either Martin or Zimmerman knew each other so previous records are irrelevant. Does however, Zimmerman's claim of losing sight of Martin turn the hunter into the hunted?
If so what is reasonable defense?
1) A person sees what they perceive as a suspicious character and calls police. Responsible action.
2) Said person follows character and is told by police that "You don't need to do that". He is not told to stop, only that he doesn't have to follow. Said person says "OK" but that only acknowledges that the message was received. It does not clearly indicate the person has agreed to stop following. Is said person wrong for doing more than the minimum?
My initial reaction is no, if done prudently. We have a communication problem.
3) Said person loses sight of character and while trying to get his bearings the character circles around and confronts said person.
4) Upon being confronted and as conflict ensues said person pulls a weapon in self defense. Is he wrong?
This appears to be Zimmerman's line of defense.
At this point it is "he said, they did" and a bunch of unsubstantiated opinions. Zimmerman is 25, 27 or 28 years old, had a car, had a truck. For some reason everyone is very clear on Martin having Skittles candies.
If Martin had survived the shooting he could claim he was being stalked and stood his ground only to be shot for doing so.
If this goes to court it'll be another O J Simpson circus.
What is so so wrong here is that the police call the shots on an arrest. I can accept that as an initial reaction but any time there is a questionable death if there isn't a trial there should be an inquest to determine the facts and if further action is needed.
